Thursday, December 30, 2010

There has been much frustration in the community about the inability of the City of New York, the state's Public Service Commission, New York Power Authority and other 'powers that be' to finalize the much anticipated deal to bring "shore power" the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, thereby allowing the visiting cruise ships to stop idling their extra-dirty diesel engines while in port, and consequently eliminating the harmful yet avoidable pollutants from our neighborhood's air and residents' lungs.

This frustration has finally forced our representatives to start asking questions about why this deal - years in the making, with all parties in agreement about its benefits - is so hard to close, and why this proposal, which has been referred to as "low hanging fruit" and a "no-brainer" by advocates in the community, government, industry and environmental groups, is all taking so long.

Two of our local representatives, Council-member Brad Lander and State Senator Daniel Squadron have been outspoken on this subject, and in an attempt to push this process forward have organized a rally and press conference to raise awareness of this issue .... and maybe even generate some much needed press coverage of this issue (hello, Brooklyn Papers?).

Gas masks will be issued at the event - this Monday, Jan. 3rd, Noon, at the corner of Pioneer and Van Brunt Streets.

See the flier/ press release from CM Lander, below (click to enlarge).

If we can get this shore power deal done, the Port Authority has stated in testimony to the Public Service Commission that the estimated savings in "monetized health costs" to Brooklyn residents will be $9 Million, per year. My post with links to this statement, here.

That means that currently the cruise ships are costing Brooklyn residents, especially our most vulnerable, $9 Million in health costs, per year - that's in cancer, asthma, heart and lung disease, and more.

In reality, this plan should be the first, small step in taking these harmful ship-created emissions, including greenhouse gasses, out of our entire city's air. Shore power and the idle-free practice of "cold ironing" should be being pursued throughout the Ports of New York and New Jersey with all types of ships - cruise, container, etc., (as has been implemented over the last 10 years in L.A. and Long Beach and other West Coast ports), with resultant health benefits to all of our residents, but especially to vulnerable port-side communities.

Please attend this rally to show that you want to see this deal closed and this important first step taken.

Click above to enlarge.

The Queen Mary 2 will be in port, so don't forget to get your gas masks!

Monday, December 6, 2010

This blog has mainly concentrated on the substances in the smoke-stack emissions from ships that are harmful to the public health, directly. These emissions, which include Sulfur Oxides, Nitrogen Oxides and Particulate Matter, are created by the burning of extra-dirty diesel (called bunker fuel) and they have been designated by the EPA as likely carcinogens, harmful to children, the elderly, people with lung disease and the most vulnerable in our communities - particularly low-income and minority communities near ports.

These health effects are of great concern to those of us who have become aware of their impact, and the growing acknowledgment of their impacts have been an compelling reason to establish "clean port" practices in cities around the world, where ships currently idle while in port, emitting these dangerous emissions for the duration of their stay. This has been the driving reason for the yet to be realized initiative to establish "shore power" at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in Red Hook, for example, where the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey states that the "plugging in" of the cruise ships that visit that terminal, which all currently idle while in port, would save the residents of Brooklyn an estimated $9 Million in annual monetized health costs (you know ... cancer, asthma, heart disease, premature mortality, etc.).

There is, however, another good reason to pursue cleaner shipping and "clean port" practices in our ports, and throughout the world.

The ships' contribution to climate change.

It is estimated that by 2050, if unabated, ships will contribute 18% of all man-made CO2. The Friends of the Earth also states that NOx emissions that ships produce could have an equally significant effect on climate change as the CO2.

Another little-known contributor to climate change in which shipping emissions play a large role, is the matter of "black carbon", more commonly known as soot. In 2007, in a petition to the EPA regarding the effects of shipping emissions on climate change (see it here), the organization Earthjustice, supported by Friends of the Earth and others, make the argument that "black carbon" has the potential to be the second greatest contributor to climate change, second only to CO2.

This is because "black carbon" particles are both suspended in the air, as well as falling on ice and snow. In both cases, because of its non-reflective qualities, the particles conduct heat and therefore contribute to warming, as well as, in the case of snow and ice, contributing to melting. It's also thought that with melting Arctic ice and shipping lanes becoming open in those previously unnavigable waterways, the ships will deliver the "black carbon" more directly to the ice and snow, thereby accelerating the damage.

Given these reasons, momentum has been building, world-wide, to acknowledge the contribution of shipping emissions to green house gasses and to assess and address their contribution to climate change.

With that in mind, organizations around the world have been trying to draw attention to the impact of shipping on climate change, as well as trying to share information about ways to mitigate the impact of these emissions.

In that spirit, Sir Richard Branson and partners in the shipping and energy industry have launched a site called "Shipping Efficiency" in an effort to "increase information flows around international shipping's energy efficiency and ultimately help reduce the environmental impacts of the world's shipping fleet."

The site goes on to state -

"Shippingefficiency.org enables anyone with access to the internet to tell an efficient, low-emission ship from an less efficient one, for the first time. Using a simple search function, users can pull up an A to G rating for around 60,000 existing ships, including the majority of the world's container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, cargo ships, cruise ships and ferries."

This means that, for instance, if I'm interested in the Grande Nigeria that is berthed at the Red Hook Container Terminal for a couple of days (idling continuously, I might add), I can go to the Shipping Efficiency web site and look up the "rating" of that ship.

As it turns out, that ship gets a "D".

I can also see the other information about that ship's engine size, fuel efficiency, etc., and if I had the skill (which I don't), I could analyze that information and work out how much fuel that ship consumes and how much pollution it creates - not only at sea, but while it's idling at the bottom of our neighborhood's residential streets.

Now, the information on this site is intended to be a tool to allow choice of shipping and to increase the overall efficiency of the world's shipping fleet. But its existence provides acknowledgment of, and insight into, the real impact that shipping has on the health of the planet, as well as the health of it's inhabitants - particularly the residents of port communities.

The point is that there are many ways that shipping can be cleaned up - both at sea and in port. Lower Sulfur fuels can be part of the equation, as their use can help drastically reduce the creation of some of these harmful emissions - including "black carbon" that not only contributes to climate change, but also is a dangerous contributor to cancers and lung disease, including asthma. There are technologies and practices out there that can be used to reduce these emissions and their impacts.

The goal should obviously be to take measures to reduce all of these impacts - on both health and climate. In the case of the ships visiting New York and New Jersey, there are efforts being made to reduce the impact that the ships emissions are having on health. There is program that is supposed to encourage the use of low-Sulfur fuels in the City's waters, as well as a much bigger long-term plan to reduce the sulfur in the fuel of all ships using the continental waters of the U.S. and Canada through an ECA (Emissions Control Area). There are plans to reduce the speed of ships and to encourage "slow steaming" in open waters. These plans are worthy, and, if implemented well, will significantly reduce harmful emissions from ships in our city's air, with flow-on health improvements to our residents.

However, in the short term - and, more importantly in the long term - don't we want to reduce all of these emissions as much as possible?

By plugging a cruise ship into "shore power", by practicing "cold ironing", (even taking into account the effect of the extra power produced by power stations, which is zero if you use hydro-electric generation as is a large proportion of NYPA provided power), you not only virtually eliminate the emissions that are harmful to human health that have been so much a focus of this blog - SOx, NOx and PM - but you also reduce the emission of Greenhouse gasses much more than any use of alternate fuel or low-sulfur diesel would.

Look at that site, Shipping Efficiency. Take a look at how much diesel these ships burn - even when they're in port. When they're idling in port it's equivalent to tens of thousands of cars, or thousands of trucks - idling right on the edge of our residential neighborhoods.

Do we want to burn more of that carbon-based fuel than is necessary? Do we want to import more petroleum products from overseas? Do we want to keep relying on fossil fuels or move to a cleaner energy economy?

So, when it comes to the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal, or the Brooklyn Container Terminal, or any of the ports of New York and New Jersey, it's time to get a move on in implementing these clean port and shipping practices - especially "cold ironing" - because it's not only about ridding the air and our kids' lungs of these dangerous emissions, it's about ridding the air of the Greenhouse gasses and "black carbon" that threaten our planet's climate.

Chris Ward, Executive Director, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey : "We estimate that the annualhealth benefits emissions reductions arising from a switch from on board generation to shore power at the BCT (Brooklyn Cruise Terminal), adjusted for Kings County, approaches $9 Million" (full statement here)

Plugging a container ship in to shore-power "takes enough pollution out of the air to equal 33,000 cars” - Mayor Bob Foster

Ships are “floating smokestacks that deliver soot and smog straight into the heart of our most crowded coastal cities” - Environmental Defense Fund

From our own Federal Government - via the Environmental Protection Agency - the E.P.A.

a. Shore power is a crucial step for cleaning our air and improving health of New Yorkers.

b. Ocean going vessels that dock in New York City typically burn high sulfur fuel in diesel engines to generate auxiliary power.

This combustion results in exhaust containing NOx, SOx and particulates and such exhaust is a likely carcinogen.

A Port Authority study shows that use of shore power at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal would annually eliminate 100 tons of NOx, 100 tons of SOx and 6 tons of particulates

c. New York City air quality is among the worst in the nation and port related emissions are meaningful and avoidable."

d. Such air emissions are harmful to the pubic generally, and especially to our children, the elderly, people with lung disease, those who exercise outside, and low-income and minority communities located near ports.

e. Implementation of a shore power tariff is consistent with economic development in New York City.

f. Implementation of an appropriate Shore Power Tariff in New York City would provide an impetus for ship owners to invest in ship-side Shore Power equipment and for widespread use of this technology in other ports on the East Coast.

g. None of the Company's tariff's accurately account for the unique service characteristics of ships that dock in New York City.

h. A high-rate setting working group charged with delivering a shore power recommendation should be convened quickly.